Breaking: Microsoft to acquire Activision-Blizzard in near 70$ billion deal
- Thread starter Draugoth
- Start date
His Dudeness
Neo Member
Haven't posted much, but just wanted to give my thoughts on this.
I've been a PS owner since I promised I wouldn't buy a MS system again after they knowingly put out faulty machines in the 360 era.
That said, I decided I'd buy one for this gen just to play gears tactics. And then the buy out of Bethesda sealed the deal. I couldn't not play fallout, elder scrolls or probably even star field.
I don't play COD and haven't for about 10 years. I'm not a fan of any multiplayer games.
Having given the background, my thoughts are as follows:
1: this adds nothing to game Industry. It simply takes away from the whole and gates it off from roughly half of the community. Xbox fans are in no better position with his acquisition. Sony fans are worse off. Assuming they play COD.
2: aside from Microsoft releasing soon to break consoles in the 360, they also
A) tried to bully through anti consumer policies with the Xbox one
B) essentially abandoned a whole generation of console owners with little exclusives. They failed at making exclusives and were embarrassed by Sony.
3: gamepass is obviously compelling value. But do people think given all of the above that as soon as Microsoft can screw consumers with price rises they won't do it?
All in all, the strategy Microsoft is employing will do nothing but hurt the games industry. How much is still unclear. But those thinking a company using money not earnt from the gaming industry to try and cripple the market leader of the game industry, can be anything but bad for everyone has no scope to look at things from a long term point of view.
I've been a PS owner since I promised I wouldn't buy a MS system again after they knowingly put out faulty machines in the 360 era.
That said, I decided I'd buy one for this gen just to play gears tactics. And then the buy out of Bethesda sealed the deal. I couldn't not play fallout, elder scrolls or probably even star field.
I don't play COD and haven't for about 10 years. I'm not a fan of any multiplayer games.
Having given the background, my thoughts are as follows:
1: this adds nothing to game Industry. It simply takes away from the whole and gates it off from roughly half of the community. Xbox fans are in no better position with his acquisition. Sony fans are worse off. Assuming they play COD.
2: aside from Microsoft releasing soon to break consoles in the 360, they also
A) tried to bully through anti consumer policies with the Xbox one
B) essentially abandoned a whole generation of console owners with little exclusives. They failed at making exclusives and were embarrassed by Sony.
3: gamepass is obviously compelling value. But do people think given all of the above that as soon as Microsoft can screw consumers with price rises they won't do it?
All in all, the strategy Microsoft is employing will do nothing but hurt the games industry. How much is still unclear. But those thinking a company using money not earnt from the gaming industry to try and cripple the market leader of the game industry, can be anything but bad for everyone has no scope to look at things from a long term point of view.
dotnotbot
Member
Knightime_X
Member
dotnotbot
Member
Cringe
BadBurger
Many “Whelps”! Handle It!
I don't think we're going to know the effects of this deal for many years. Whether it will harm the industry, help it, or even be all that noticeable once the dust clears and players acclimate to the new landscape.
There's so much up in the air still - the deal itself doesn't conclude until next year last I read, anything Microsoft gets these teams working on now won't even be presentable for a year or more, and Sony is still plugging away at their first party projects, any of which could turn out to be another money printer like Spider-Man & Miles Morales.
Fess
Member
Consumers can kinda screw MS back, there has been numerous strategies to get Gamepass cheap over the years. And if the standard price go up too much people will no doubt make it heard if they're not okay with it just like the Xbox Live price increase.
Warnen
Don't pass gaas, it is your Destiny!
1)Activison is in a bad place right now, any change for them is for the better. Overall MS is a great place to work the employees will be much safer. That alone helps the industry. Yeah MS didn't spend 70 Billion to make Sony users happy….
2) Dunno what your even on about? What generation was abandoned? What anti consumer practices? The shit return policy on digital good? Next gen upgrade fees? Oh wait that's Sony….
3)Of course the price will rise, look at Netflix. Trick is if it stays a good value people won't leave. It's a sub if you hate it don't pay for it. You can still buy the games(on pc and Xbox).
The big problem I have with this viewpoint is that it also perfectly describes Sony's actions in carefully and craftily buying what seems to be permanent exclusivity for Square's big, AAA JRPGs. It doesn't benefit PLayStation gamers and takes away from Xbox. Yet you did not express these sentiments.
This seems like rank hypocrisy to me.
Another thing you say which leaves you open to credible accusations of hypocrisy and confusion.
First you condemn Microsoft for not having enough exclusives in the xbox one era, which is a direct result of only having a handful of first party studios. Then when they move to rectify this by purchasing studios to grow their first party capabilities, you condemn them too. How does this make sense to you?
There is no record on this forum of you complaining about the price hike to $70 for Sony's first party games, so it really feels like hypocrisy for you to shoe-horn this point in.
Gamepass MIGHT go up in price this gen. We don't know. What we do know for certain is that it's going to skyrocket in value when activision's games get added, and when Bethesda's studios really get going. If we get to the point where there's a cadence of 5-6 AAA first party games launching to the service every year, including staples like Call of Duty, then even a $5 increase cannot be said to be exploitative.
All these arguments about Gamepass price increase all come from a viewpoint that imagines the value of the service remains stagnant, and that's just juvenile logic.
Given that MS would still be 3rd in revenue and trail the market leader in brand perception, I have no idea where some of you have bought this notion that their overarching plan is to 'try to cripple Sony'. They've repeated this over and over that they see themselves enmeshed in a long conflict with the likes of Google, Amazon and Facebook for content dominance. Unfortunate that you cannot see beyond a frantic desire to defend your favorite console maker.
Tell me how this deal 'harms gaming' any more than Tencent's and Embracer's acquisition sprees with their end games shrouded in secrecy.
His Dudeness
Neo Member
I don't see any likeness in square and some timed exclusives vs a $70 billion purchase of activision. Xbox has never gained traction in Japan so I'm sure there is little incentive for square to release jrpgs on Xbox. Whereas the majority of COD players are on PlayStation as far as I know.
My frustration re the xbox one generation is that it showed that seemingly Xbox couldn't work out how to make exclusives, let alone exclusives that peopled cared about. So instead of trying to fix that, clearly they have decided to skip that step and buy them (with computer division money). Whilst a little risky, it is a great move to buy yourself credibility. But I don't believe it's fair, or reflects well on Xbox's gaming division. They've effectively said, "we give up trying to make games, here's daddy's cheque book. Sort it out". All Of that is completely different to Sony, which isn't even really up for debate.
Re gamepass price rises, im not saying that can't increase the price. Im just saying that long term I predict those that champion it today, will be complaining about its value. The more consolidated that the service becomes, the less competition that they have, the more they will use that power to screw the consumer. As they've done before.
The last point you make, about Microsoft's long term plan. It's true that I don't know their scheming etc. nor do you. But one thing is for sure, I don't believe a word they say. Before announcing Bethesda he was saying he didn't like the idea of exclusives. That changed really quick.
His Dudeness
Neo Member
The Xbox one generation.
They tried to change the way people owned games, refused to listen to the wails of anguish from fans, and only changed their policy when they realised all the good will and brand identicication they won with the 360, was being washed away with few people buying a One at the start of the generation.
Then, Cleary once they saw the writing was on the wall, and the generation lost. They cut the gen loose and focused on the next fight.
A fight I will acknowledge they are fighting very well.
Fitzchiv
Member
1) "Xbox fans are in no better position" - yes, they are. They now have day 1 access to a huge raft of titles via the Gamepass subscription most of them already have.
2) A - policies which have, since then, become standard practice including with Sony. B - so are they supposed to remedy this or not?!
3) Microsoft will be aware of price elasticity of demand. People can opt out and still be in the same position they have been for 10 years.
Don't move goalposts. Your initial concerns had nothing to do with the price tag. You claimed you disagreed with the notion of buying exclusivity for titles that were already coming to the platform. That fits perfectly for Sony's purchase of Final Fantasy exclusivity.
Final Fantasy games sell well outside Japan, so your comment about Xbox not being big sellers in Japan makes no sense.
Basically, you have no qualms with Sony purchasing exclusivity for multiplatform AAA games but get upset when the reverse is the case.
That's basically the textbook definition of hypocrisy.
This is completely false. Every single first party studio owned by Microsoft was heavily engaged with making games. After closing Lionhead, They had Turn 10, 343, Coalition, Rare, Undead Labs and Mojang. Many of these made quality games that yes, people wanted to play. The real issue they had was the genres these studios focused on weren't as popular as the competition, and the fact that they were definitely insufficient to put out enough games.
And now they've moved to rectify the situation by acquiring more talent and devoting more resources.
So like I said earlier, you'll need to make up your mind whether you want MS first party to expand significantly or whether you want them left the same.
How can you expect anyone to take you seriously when you say things like "they've given up trying to make games"?
As long as it's an optional service, they'll have to maintain value for money. But it seems you're somewhat incentivized to declare doom and gloom for Gamepass. I just don't buy it.
Phil Spencer has never said he 'didn't like the idea of exclusives'. That would have been at odds with growing their first party capabilities.
You've led yourself astray.
Last edited:
ToTTenTranz
Banned
Reminder on how not all the enormous acquisitions go through.
This isn't a suggestion that the AB acquisition is in grave danger or something, but for an acquisition of this scale the legislators will be pushing for anti-monopoly obligations.
Nvidia did promise to give full access of ARM's newest uarchs to their current competitors and it still didn't go through.
Of course, AFAIK Nvidia does have a worse history of monopolistic practices than Microsoft in the last ~10 years, and those were probably used by the plaintiffs to push the class action suit and kill the ARM deal.
I think Microsoft will probably be safe if they sign a contract saying they'll release Call of Duty, Diablo and others on Playstation for at least the next 10 years or so.
Which is on par with what Phil Spencer has been saying.
Note: I never played a single Activision Blizzard game on a console, I personally don't care either way. I'm simply commenting on the deal terms which will definitely go through a lot of hoops throughout 2022 and 2023.
This isn't a suggestion that the AB acquisition is in grave danger or something, but for an acquisition of this scale the legislators will be pushing for anti-monopoly obligations.
Nvidia did promise to give full access of ARM's newest uarchs to their current competitors and it still didn't go through.
Of course, AFAIK Nvidia does have a worse history of monopolistic practices than Microsoft in the last ~10 years, and those were probably used by the plaintiffs to push the class action suit and kill the ARM deal.
I think Microsoft will probably be safe if they sign a contract saying they'll release Call of Duty, Diablo and others on Playstation for at least the next 10 years or so.
Which is on par with what Phil Spencer has been saying.
Note: I never played a single Activision Blizzard game on a console, I personally don't care either way. I'm simply commenting on the deal terms which will definitely go through a lot of hoops throughout 2022 and 2023.
Last edited:
Orbital2060
Member
I hope it goes through, on behalf of all of the employees at Acti Blizz. If it doesnt, Xbox can just carry on.
But it sounds like the best possible outcome for the people working there, so Im rooting for this go through.
But it sounds like the best possible outcome for the people working there, so Im rooting for this go through.
AV
We ain't outta here in ten minutes, we won't need no rocket to fly through space
All the Activision and Blizzard games that will be added to Game Pass aren't a massive bonus to Game Pass subscribers? What are you smoking? I will more than likely not need to buy Diablo 4 at launch and my WoW sub could be free/cheaper at some point if I want to go back.
I don't care about potential price changes, I'm already subscribed until 2024 on a dirt cheap workaround. This deal is already a benefit to me without even thinking about the possibility of MS bringing back some old IPs that Actiblizz didn't care about.
Last edited:
Multiple companies were able to put forward credible arguments that an NVIDiA acquisition of ARM would be an existential threat to their future.
Not even Sony has bothered to make this argument for the Activision case.
If the concern is with 'monopoly' and 'consolidation', of what benefit would that pledge do? And why stop at PlayStation? What of Stadia? Amazon Luna? GeForce Now?
its the difference between vertical and horizontal mergers and also how important ARM is to both so many countries and also the UK but yeah, i think MS and Activision will go through after some scrutiny, i am not sure about the concessions that MS will need to make though if any.
Swift_Star
Banned
Excellent points. Finally someone that is not treating MS like a bullied child in the kintergarden.
1) I will show you with a simple example what it adds:
PS5
Deathloop: 69.99 €
Psychonauts 2 : 59.99€
Cod Vanguard : 81.99€
Xbox
Deathloop: 0*
Psychonauts 2: 0*
Cod Vanguard: 0*
GamePass : 9.99 €
2) Every manufacturer has had its ups and downs .. to point to Microsoft in particular doesn't make much sense, just remember the PS3 and the Sony managers who replied "find a second job to buy it". the DRMs that Microsoft wanted to introduce at the time of the Xbox One's launch weren't wrong and are pretty much the basis of what many devices (including consoles) work today. Post launch, Microsoft has seen a major restructuring of the corporate management department ..including company-wide CEO Nadella who arrived in 2014 and Mattrick's departure from the head of the Xbox division.Nadella and Spencer have a very different vision of the gaming world compared to the previous Ballmer / Mattrick (I would say clearly given the news) ...and it's highly naive at this point to compare the two views ... this is the new Microsoft and the new Xbox.Going back to your points after the 360 error, also the hw division has seen changes and today their consoles are certainly the best in class at an engineering level and From all other points of view (power,dimensions, consumption, dissipation, noise and I would also add aesthetics)
3) Any real market expert (and certainly the team that created Gamepass did) has studied the psychology behind subscription services and they know very well that there is a cap that people are willing to pay ... especially for secondary services like video games. The service will certainly increase but not by a disproportionate price and it will do so slowly over the course of 5 or 10 years and almost certainly never exceeding the current market value of 19.99 €. There is nothing to worry about from this point of view.
Last edited:
Swift_Star
Banned
What MS is doing with GP is similar to what they did with Windows back then. In the past, they didn't care people used pirated Windows as long as they learnt the OS. Then suddenly they started to care about that. It was a trojan horse just like they're doing with GP. they're letting you do this now, it won't last forever.
ToTTenTranz
Banned
Multiple companies were able to put forward credible arguments that an NVIDiA acquisition of ARM would be an existential threat to their future.
Not even Sony has bothered to make this argument for the Activision case.
If the concern is with 'monopoly' and 'consolidation', of what benefit would that pledge do? And why stop at PlayStation? What of Stadia? Amazon Luna? GeForce Now?
I think someone got really triggered with the idea of Call of Duty continuing to release on Playstation consoles.
it will until 2023 and after that under form of warzone at 100%
and by that date all companies will probably release all their games on PC day one and true exclusives will be a thing of the past so ps users will relax a little bit
Last edited:
oldergamer
Member
As some mentioned there is definitely some hypocrisy in your posts that should be called out. My overall thoughts on the situation.
1. Yes MS started the Xbox generation in the wrong way. they tried to make changes to how people use games. Online 24/7 in order to play games was basically ahead of its time for consoles. Internally at MS the game division was forced to change direction. MS decided to go for the living room device instead of console. They spent far more money on TV and TV content deals then they had ever spent. They opened their own production studios to produce tv content. They spent 100's of millions going in that direction. Xbox was directed to focus more on TV and less on games. Kinect had to be included and this forced them into a price region that was the opposite of the 360.
2. They focused less money working with external developers towards the end of the 360 era. They moved all 1st party development to the Xbone. Note they had more first part titles at launch then Sony did, and imo better titles out of the gate. It didn't help them overcome the shortcomings. The lack of focus on first party publishing, with a ton of money going towards "TV" put them into a very bad place going forward. Prior generations they had between 20 - 30 games in development between first party and first party publishing at launch. That sets them up for the first 2 - 3 years of the console cycle. They didn't have this when xbone launched and it led to the dry spell for the next 3 years as they tried to build this up again
3. Yes always online was stupid. It impacted used game sales was also stupid and a total marketing mistake. Was it anti consumer? yeah. Was it also ahead of its time? yeah. People don't notice how many games require online these days. still wasn't a good idea to lose the games focus. Forcing connect inclusion made them more expensive, while also caused them to go with weaker hardware to cut costs. However after shedding the leadership and promoting spencer, they reversed direction on all the mistakes immediately. However they were essentially starting from scratch when it came to first party and mindshare.
4. Sony since the PS2 days, had been paying third parties to not release games on competitors consoles. This helped them kill the Dreamcast, gain a foothold & become more popular then Nintendo. This helped them maintain position against new competitors like Microsoft. is this anti consumer? Yes. anyone such as yourself should be called out for the hypocrisy. We can call MS out on it ( they did it during the 360 days as well ), and also call Sony out on it too. Its a fucking shitty. I wanted to play street fighter 5 and couldn't on xbox. Despite it being there on the 360.
5. MS tried to compete with Sony on this level by buying exclusives, but they couldn't secure the kind of exclusives they wanted. Third parties that they worked with were also getting purchased by other publishers. They missed the development negotiation windows due to the focus on TV. This had the effect of killing most of first party publishing for them. The last big deal MS made was in 2013 to pay Eidos for Tomb raider exclusivity, as they had no other title like that in their portfolio. Spencer wasn't happy with that practice and said they wouldn't do it anymore.
6. They tried to build back up some first part development and publishing. rebuilding what they had with xbox arcade. The market consolidation made it very difficult. some of the published games had development trouble, and /or not very good. After a few years, and after Ballmer left MS ( good riddance ), It was at that stage he convinced the CEO it was worth investing in, and that they should go all in. They started looking to expand first party internally instead of trying to pay for games to avoid the competitor.
7. They started reaching out to people they worked with in the past. Contacted studio heads & development houses that were independent, and worked on a bunch of deals to rebuild first party. They had in the past a close relationship with Bethesda ( also id software ) and that led to a number of purchases we now know of. Is it anticompetitive or anti consumer to purchase development studios? No of course not. Sony & Nintendo do it. Publishers do it. In their eyes instead of paying to keep a third party game off other platforms. buy the developer and let them make what they want for your platform. Not the same as Sony's strategy. However it takes multiple years to see the affects of that change and it didn't help them on the Xbone at all.
8. Gamepass started doing well and this gave justification to trying to grow first party bigger so they can release more titles more frequently. Not only was it additional revenue and profitable after a unknown point, it gave them a need to make different types of games to add to the service. A secondary reason to grow first party bigger.
9. Sony tried at the start of the current gen to go out and secure a TON of exclusives from appearing on xbox day 1. They were successful in some places but not others. First party internally at both companies was running behind due to covid and it would help fill out the first year. MS instead was continuing to purchase companies to add to first party and this is where we are.
They have gone back to not caring. Also they do seem to take it market by market.
I really don't care about whether or not the IP stays exclusive. I'm not tethered at the hip to any console. Feel free to dig through my post history.
I'm laughing at the idea that Congress or any regulator would demand that MS continues to release games from a purchased studio on just ONE of their competitors. It doesn't make sense.
Swift_Star
Banned
And they'll care about how much you spend on gamepass soon enough.
If there isn't people buying dlc/mtx/games, more so. If there is, then they don't need to increase gamepass costs imo.
How many times has amazon prime go up in price?
February 2005: Amazon Prime debuts and announced for $79/year.
March 2014: Membership jumped $20 from $79/year to $99/year.
June 2018: Rates jumped another $20 to its current $119/year cost.
Every 4 years it seems.
Last edited:
Warnen
Don't pass gaas, it is your Destiny!
Man you have some imagination…. Tired to change the way people owned games? You mean the way all digital games now work….
Didn't listen to fans? They dropped the Kinect quickly and changed the way games worked before it even launched….
They released the Xbox one X mid gen after "giving up", the most powerful home console up to that point and gamepass.
MS tried to push digital to soon and released an underpowered console. That's and the lose of Cod didn't help.. Seems like some of that is repeating now.
darrylgorn
Member
Swift_Star
Banned
I think it's a little different here. Prime is not Amazon's core business, GP is Xbox's core business. You have to compare it with Netflix.
Netflix has basically a single revenue stream.
Xbox doesn't.
Amazon doesn't.
The comparison to Amazon Prime is more sensible. Prime is a subscription service to power their old core business aka the storefront (excluding AWS) just like Gamepass.
Last edited:
AV
We ain't outta here in ten minutes, we won't need no rocket to fly through space
When is "soon" exactly? Because you can STILL do the Gold conversion loophole and get Ultimate dirt cheap for 3 years. Your Windows example doesn't really fly when that was about piracy, not buying cheap keys, and you can legally buy Windows 10 keys for a fraction of the cost of what MS sells them for, they don't care.
It's about getting as many people as possible into the ecosystem to boost the subscriber number and encourage more people to jump aboard and pay the full price without thinking about loopholes.
I wonder if - on a different forum - there's Google Docs fans spreading FUD about Microsoft hiking pricing for Office 365 subscriptions.
I'm pretty sure they're aware on the need to keep prices palatable and maintain the service at great value for money.
I like this arrangement, though. You can keep ringing 'the end is nigh!' bells while I enjoy my Gamepass games
MilkyJoe
Member
Saudi-backed group buys ESL for $1bn
The Savvy Gaming Group, which is backed by Saudi Arabia's controversial Public Investment Fund (PIF), has bought the ES…
www.eurogamer.net
Another deal in the space.
Chukhopops
Member
To me the constant fearmongering on the GP price going up in the future is just an admission of its unparalleled value. I see it as people thinking it's just too good to be true at the moment.I wonder if - on a different forum - there's Google Docs fans spreading FUD about Microsoft hiking pricing for Office 365 subscriptions.
I'm pretty sure they're aware on the need to keep prices palatable and maintain the service at great value for money.
I like this arrangement, though. You can keep ringing 'the end is nigh!' bells while I enjoy my Gamepass games
But the point of GP is first and foremost to get people to switch to the Xbox ecosystem and get their friends to switch too. That's why there are so many good co-op games and once you're in the ecosystem you'll spend your money in it, with MTX, subscriptions, games etc.
Swift_Star
Banned
Office 365 is already pretty expensive as it is. But it's way cheaper to maintain than GP. You can't be serious in thinking GP won't raise in price. You're in for a rude awakening.I wonder if - on a different forum - there's Google Docs fans spreading FUD about Microsoft hiking pricing for Office 365 subscriptions.
I'm pretty sure they're aware on the need to keep prices palatable and maintain the service at great value for money.
I like this arrangement, though. You can keep ringing 'the end is nigh!' bells while I enjoy my Gamepass games
Hitchyhero
Banned
Why is this always a concern? It slcomes across as fake concern. You can literally cancel at any time you want if you don't perceive it as good value. Your not in a lifetime contract.
There will obviously come a point where a price rise has to happen (inflation alone every year has gone up, yet gamepass has stayed the same. Meanwhile Sony games now cost £70 brand new. Don't like the price.... Don't get it... Pretty simple really.
Last edited:
I never said the price couldn't come up. You should learn to read these posts carefully.
I said that prices won't be raised above palatable figures, and that VALUE would be maintained.
Price =/= value
Gamepass, to me, is great value right now. In the future, the only thing we know for certain is that the number of first party games will dramatically increase. And those Don't get taken off the service. Not to mention Activision's back catalogue. A small price increase will still maintain great value since the number of games are increasing dramatically.
RGB'D
Member
So we are comparing Don Mattrick to Phil Spencer? I might actually play COD now but the Bluzzard get is huge and absolutely improves my investment into gamepass.
Finally someone without memory of a goldfish.
JLB
Banned
ARM and Activision acquisitions have absolutely no common ground. Like at all. ARM is a company that is strategic not only for biggest corporations in the world, but nation states (US and China, particularly) and critical security systems.
It could be problematic, even at a lower bid, if MS attempts to acquire Sony, or Steam though.
What are you talking about?
After the Mattrick faceplant, Spencer had them produce the best console hardware of the previous generation.
Vognerful
Member
Bro could you do me a favor and remind me this amazing movie's name?Spencer to Kotick after the deal is finalized
Office 365 is expensive? What? 69€/year is expensive? The ammount of work i do on their software, i pay that cost in 2 days of work.
Want to see expensive, check autocad prices or any structural software. That's expensive, even for a home user you're looking at 1000€/year or more.
kuncol02
Banned
Kung Fu Hustle
Swift_Star
Banned
Nobody said they would be raised above palatable figures lol you're trying to hard to have a gotcha moment here.
SportsFan581
Member
I'd be shocked if they had to make any concessions at all in this instance. You are comparing an industry with only two major players in existence (that being ARM and X86) with the former powering everything from mobile phones to satellites, and that doesn't even account for the issue that ARM has been acting as a designer and not a manufacturer. Basically the Nvidia Arm deal could rock the world in many markets and our daily lives. A game publisher buying another publisher in a market in which many other publishers exist doesn't quite have the same weight to it.